Comprehend
Res Ipsa Loquitur
Well, now I am interested... is there a major disagreement between different groups?
Do most Christians believe it is plural or singular?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why Elohim?
- Thread starter sandy whitelinger
- Start date
Well, now I am interested... is there a major disagreement between different groups?
Do most Christians believe it is plural or singular?
What I find interesting about the questions is that they poll attitudes rather than query facts.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I dunno.
Well, it's indisputable that Elohim is plural. What it means or may have originally meant is speculation based on either intelligent or unintelligent guesses.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Well, that sounds about as LDS as you can get.
Comprehend
Res Ipsa Loquitur
Comprehend
Res Ipsa Loquitur
Anyone like to make an intelligent guess?
Obviously it makes more sense to Mormons that Elohim is plural and was meant to be plural.
The plural form of the noun here in Hebrew is the plural of majesty or excellence. (See NAB, St. Joseph Edition, Bible Dictionary, p. 330; also, New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. V, p. 287.) It conveys no thought of plurality of persons within a godhead.
The title Elo·him´ draws attention to Jehovahs strength as the Creator.
Since
the Hebrew word translated God is often in the plural form (Elo·him´), does this support the Trinitarian argument for a three-in-one God?
No, it does not. This same Hebrew word, Elo·him´, is used in the same way for individual divinities, such as Dagon (1 Samuel 5:7) and Marduk (Daniel 1:2), who were not triune gods. Grammatically, this plural indicates excellencenot numberbeing used consistently with a singular verb.
so are you saying that the one true God is not worthy of majesty.?
gnostic
The Lost One
No, that's not what I am saying.may said:
I am saying the use of plurality in connection with majesty was not used until the medieval period. The plurals used in Elohim is simply plural, thus "gods". There are also no such as "Us", "Our" to imply only "one" royal person. These use of language are medieval invention.
The New Advent discussion is worth while.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
And this wasn't corrected because?
So why didn't they make the correction to singular in their revisions?
No answer?
Perhaps because they didn't view it from the standpoint of Calvinism. They are rather silly questions. Why has no one corrected fish or sheep?
It may well have been that nascent Judaism associated plurality with transcendency. Is The All singular or plural? What meta-rule governs this decision?
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Obviously, they didn't think that they needed to. Elohim had been inextricably connected to Yahweh for some time before the writing of the texts.
Also true - good point.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
It wasn't corrected for reasons stated by Angellous: That the Jews had already resolved the issue by the time it was written down. I should add that, when the stories were finally collected and written down, there is considerable evidence that the writers thought it more important to preserve the traditions than to "get the facts straight."
The word "Elohim" ultimately has it's origins in Canaanite theology which was included in the theology of the Israelites after they conquered much of the Land of Canaan. In Canaanite mythology, El was the supreme God and Elohim was used in reference to the sons of El. It becomes quite clear, in the Torah, that most of the Israelites adopted the religion of the Canaanites as there are repeated references to the worship of Canaanite Gods and Goddesses. This did not change until after the Babylonian captivity during which time the Israelites came into contact with the Zoroastrians.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
All of your input is appreciated but it seems like there is a whole lot of guessing going on.
From Wikipedia:
"Elohim has plural morphological form in Hebrew, but it is used with singular verbs and adjectives in the Hebrew text when the particular meaning of the God of Israel (a singular deity) is traditionally understood. Thus the very first words of the Bible are bre**** bara elohim, where bara ברא is a verb inflected as third person singular masculine perfect. If Elohim were an ordinary plural word, then the plural verb form bar'u בראו would have been used in this sentence instead. Such plural grammatical forms are in fact found in cases where Elohim has semantically plural reference (not referring to the God of Israel). There are a few other words in Hebrew that have a plural ending, but refer to one thing and take singular verbs and adjectives, for example בעלים (be'alim, owner) in Exodus 21:29 and elsewhere."
From Wikipedia:
"Elohim has plural morphological form in Hebrew, but it is used with singular verbs and adjectives in the Hebrew text when the particular meaning of the God of Israel (a singular deity) is traditionally understood. Thus the very first words of the Bible are bre**** bara elohim, where bara ברא is a verb inflected as third person singular masculine perfect. If Elohim were an ordinary plural word, then the plural verb form bar'u בראו would have been used in this sentence instead. Such plural grammatical forms are in fact found in cases where Elohim has semantically plural reference (not referring to the God of Israel). There are a few other words in Hebrew that have a plural ending, but refer to one thing and take singular verbs and adjectives, for example בעלים (be'alim, owner) in Exodus 21:29 and elsewhere."